Jersey Flyer wrote on Nov 11^th, 2009 at 7:11pm:

Yes, to some extent "head-down-itis" is a problem for primary students flying with "steam gauges", too. It's not so much the brightness, it's that you unconsciously seek flight information there, once you learn how to interpret what they're showing you. Navigation-wise, even the humble CDI can become distracting... newbies tend to stare at the damn needle instead of looking outside. The "magenta line of death", as some call the course line on a GPS, is just a modern update.

Switching back and forth takes effort, but the trick to overcoming this is to give equal time to both methods of navigating and flying maneuvers with precision. Once you get some hood time, it can seem very hard to, say, make a nice coordinated turn to a specific heading without gaining/losing altitude, by only looking outside and at the compass...and really hard to do one then the other (as one normally does when breaking out of  clouds- or taking off the Foggles- on an IFR approach), but that's only because you haven't practiced it enough recently.

On the other side of the coin, most of my flying, power and gliders, in the last 3 years has been in aircraft with no gyros, let alone GPS or glass PFDs. I do OK with gauges, PFDs, and GPS in simulation these days, even IFR, but in a real plane, I'm sure I'd be all out of whack, initially, flying "heads-down", especially under the hood. I'd want to look outside so bad! Last few times I've flown anything with a full panel, I pretty much ignored that stuff. But of course, if you're going to fly any plane on a regular basis, you should be able to competently use every tool it comes with.
But you can't rely on any one tool too much... I've been talking about how I've become an "eyes outside" pilot recently, but not surprisingly, when I recently flew a glider with the instruments (both of them, LOL) covered up, I did not do very well guessing my altitude and airspeed. I was shocked. Seems I am not looking at those gauges too much, really, but I am still not thinking enough about what I can see outside.

  Just remember that both ways of flying are important, and give them equal attention, and you'll do OK .
   

justalilrandom wrote on Nov 15^th, 2009 at 4:23am:


Sounds like your school has figured it out, as I'm sure many will eventually.  I am not saying glass cockpits are the only reason for poor airmanship, but I have seen them become too much of a distraction.

I have to say that this thread has gotten me thinking all afternoon about some empirical questions.

I seem to come from a unique perspective here, being someone who initially hated the system, but learned to appreciate it more once I got a chance to use it and let it be useful.  Yes it is useless when you are putting around in VFR, but in IFR it can be a big help in reducing workload.  However like in big airplanes, automation can be a bitch if you get in a squeeze.  The mistake made is when an unexpected and plan-changing event happens, pilots who rely too much on automation will try to "fly the computer" before they fly the airplane.  A good case is the AA 757 that plowed into a mountain awhile back:  the pilots lost SA because they had their attention focused on re-programming the FMS and not actually controlling the plane, gaining altitude and trying to back track to find out where they are.  Long story short:  some computers - good, too many - bad.  If the pilot does not rely solely on the G-1000 and other cockpit play-things they will be fine.  Any flight school using these systems should devote a considerable amount of time teaching on this subject.

It would be interesting to do an eye tracking experiment on the effect of cockpit type (glass/analog) on the number and duration of optical saccades in and outside the cockpit.  As a matter of fact I'm gonna go do a literature search on just that right now.  I'll report back later

DaveSims wrote on Nov 29^th, 2009 at 9:29am:


We're taught to set it up without the engine running, use the battery, means you aren't paying for fuel or the engine hours as you sit setting it up....

Holy smokes - I think my suspicions (roundly backed up by opinions here) have just been borne out.

I took a walk over to the local airport (not gonna say which one for obvious reasons) and borrowed an instructor for an hour around the city. (For those that don't know, I suffered a serious heart attack a couple years ago and lost my license as a result. Now I get my flying fix by borrowing an instructor for an 'introductory flight'. heh heh...)

Anyhoo; the local FC is pretty typical for a major city - all grey carpet, shiny glass counters and a whole bunch of instructors - the oldest around 25 or so.

They use Cirruses and C-172's as training aircraft.

With G-1000's.

The instructor I went up with was half my age - a pretty little brunette with - I hate to say - a pretty bitchy attitude and rather high opinion of her own abilities.

Which sucked rocks.

Sorry - this isn't intended to be sexist at all; but this chick was a flat-out lousy pilot. Her flight handling skills were miserable - barely what I'd call adequate for a PPL checkride; let alone someone with an instructor's certificate.

Careful questioning reavealed that yes - she'd only ever flown out of this one flying club and only flown G-1000 aircraft - which makes her a far better pilot, don'tchaknow, since she has access to all available information.

No kidding - I felt sick. I hate to admit it; but an argument ensued which resulted in me aborting the flight and heading back SPD.

Lol - I was p!$$ed off; and unfortunately my circuit suffered a bit; turned on final way too high - which she was only too happy to loudly point out. Her squawk was even louder though when I threw in one mother of a sideslip and dropped her onto the glideslope sweet as you please. (For those that don't know, you can REALLY get the 172 sideways - nothing like a C-tab, but she'll still slip amazingly well.) She knew how to sideslip of course - sort of - but as what she calls 'air work' - things for students to practice. She had no idea just how hard you can throw that ugly square box around.
Anyway, public opinion amongst the instructors was pretty solid against me when we taxied back - apparently she's 'one of our best instructors' and I'm 'not a real pilot or anything'. So I handed over my log book and told them to read it this time - no-one had bothered when I walked in. It shut them up quick. Which is astonishing - since it's nothing great at all.
My point had been to look at the first hundred hours; but they were more surprised by the totals - to these guys 962 hours is apparently a lot.    It's barely a beginning.
Those first hundred hours? Well, my grandfather was a bush pilot; and a Hurricane pilot in the BoB. My Dad flew CF-100's in the RCAF - they both gave me some good pointers for those first hundred hours. Those first hundred were landings - lots and lots of landings. Constant circuit practice; landing and landing and landing. High wind, low wind. Crosswind. Downwind. High entry, low entry, covered instruments, power off; every kind of landing practised over again until I could put her down in my sleep. Hundreds of landings and with the exception of my Mom on her birthday, not one passenger who was not an instructor. The glider's license I started with helped a lot too - nothing sharpens landing skill like a deadstick landing onto one wheel. 
I may not have progressed much past the tow-pilot stage; mainly 'cause I never wanted to - I was a soldier, not  a bush pilot. I sure as heck can't talk theory like a 'real' instructor (I'm not a 'real' instructor - I taught gliding to Cadets. I don't have a civilian instructor's certificate; I just have dozens of successful graduates.) But I can bloody fly - anything.
See, when I got my license, instructors were long-timers; old heads who knew flying inside out and backwards. Nowadays it's different - instructorship is the first stepping-stone up the commercial flight ladder, so instructors tend to be young and ambitious up-and-comers. (Or so it seems to me.) Certainly none of these kids fly taildraggers or gliders; have never picked up free hours flying tow or jump and had never landed on grass.

These are pilots? Not in my book.

These folks are being taught to operate the machine - not to fly. They fly using the instruments - by the numbers. The G-1000 gives them all the cues to fly 'perfectly' and this makes them good pilots.

Heh - let's stick 'em into my Grandfather's Scout - an airplane with no instruments most of the time (back when you could get way with that) and see if they could fly it. I doubt it.

Anyhoo; I'm ranting - I'll shut up now. I've been looking and have found a small club about an hour out of town with a Citabria available for instruction - I'm heading out there the day the temperature gets above -30c. Hopefully things are a bit better there.

Cheers!

Yeah - of course, thinking back 20 years; I don't think I was that much different. Air Cadet instructors are notorious little Tom Cruise wannabes who give themselves 'cool' pilot call-signs, etc. ("I'm Eagle! I'm Boomer!" etc. To my eternal shame, I was...er...'Hawk'. Thankfully I grew out of it by the start of next year's program...  ) And I'll be the first to state that a 'lack of humility' is definitely a huge failing of my own but even still; this girl's skills really were below standard. You know; like 'sideslip...appplyyyyyy leeeeeeft rudderrrrrrr......ooooooooposiiiiiite aaaaaaailerooooonnnnnn.......'
It should be applied with no more thought than that applied to walking; you don't have time to think about your airmanship.
And I agree completely that it's the attitude, not the equipment but I can't help but wonder how much of that attitude is being reinforced by the G-1000. I do know her lookout skills were deficient - no real scan pattern; she stared out front, looked at the Garmin. The occasional glance around, look at the Garmin, stare out front. That disturbed me quite a bit, considering how busy that airspace is.
Oh well - I dunno, maybe I'm just being a crotchety old bugger; I certainly feel it in this cold.